Sentencing murder: Boyle v HM Advocate SLT 29

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

It is common knowledge that the sentence for murder is life.1 But while the
symbolism – of a life confined for a life destroyed – is strong, convicted murderers do not necessarily remain in prison for the whole of their natural lives.2 The advent of the “punishment part” or (in England) “tariff”, constituting the minimum period of detention necessary to represent retribution and deterrence, while intended to express punitive principles, also affirms that release prior to death is always considered, even if the period actually spent in prison appears to be increasing.3 The punitive nature of the punishment part is particularly well illustrated by the tariff’s history in England and Wales.4 The power to set the tariff initially constituted an encroachment on the judicial function by the Home Secretary,5 raising justified fears that tariffs were being set for political purposes.6 Tariffs have not become any less punitive but they must now be determined by the judiciary.7
LanguageEnglish
Pages473-477
Number of pages5
JournalEdinburgh Law Review
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2010

Fingerprint

homicide
correctional institution
penalty
common knowledge
deterrence
anxiety
death
history

Keywords

  • sentencing
  • murder
  • prisoners
  • punishment

Cite this

@article{c071670014d2417e9c3aaf047884ed8f,
title = "Sentencing murder: Boyle v HM Advocate SLT 29",
abstract = "It is common knowledge that the sentence for murder is life.1 But while the symbolism – of a life confined for a life destroyed – is strong, convicted murderers do not necessarily remain in prison for the whole of their natural lives.2 The advent of the “punishment part” or (in England) “tariff”, constituting the minimum period of detention necessary to represent retribution and deterrence, while intended to express punitive principles, also affirms that release prior to death is always considered, even if the period actually spent in prison appears to be increasing.3 The punitive nature of the punishment part is particularly well illustrated by the tariff’s history in England and Wales.4 The power to set the tariff initially constituted an encroachment on the judicial function by the Home Secretary,5 raising justified fears that tariffs were being set for political purposes.6 Tariffs have not become any less punitive but they must now be determined by the judiciary.7",
keywords = "sentencing, murder, prisoners, punishment",
author = "Claire Mcdiarmid",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
doi = "10.3366/E136498091000171X",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "473--477",
journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",
issn = "1364-9809",
publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",
number = "3",

}

Sentencing murder : Boyle v HM Advocate SLT 29. / Mcdiarmid, Claire.

In: Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, 09.2010, p. 473-477.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sentencing murder

T2 - Edinburgh Law Review

AU - Mcdiarmid, Claire

PY - 2010/9

Y1 - 2010/9

N2 - It is common knowledge that the sentence for murder is life.1 But while the symbolism – of a life confined for a life destroyed – is strong, convicted murderers do not necessarily remain in prison for the whole of their natural lives.2 The advent of the “punishment part” or (in England) “tariff”, constituting the minimum period of detention necessary to represent retribution and deterrence, while intended to express punitive principles, also affirms that release prior to death is always considered, even if the period actually spent in prison appears to be increasing.3 The punitive nature of the punishment part is particularly well illustrated by the tariff’s history in England and Wales.4 The power to set the tariff initially constituted an encroachment on the judicial function by the Home Secretary,5 raising justified fears that tariffs were being set for political purposes.6 Tariffs have not become any less punitive but they must now be determined by the judiciary.7

AB - It is common knowledge that the sentence for murder is life.1 But while the symbolism – of a life confined for a life destroyed – is strong, convicted murderers do not necessarily remain in prison for the whole of their natural lives.2 The advent of the “punishment part” or (in England) “tariff”, constituting the minimum period of detention necessary to represent retribution and deterrence, while intended to express punitive principles, also affirms that release prior to death is always considered, even if the period actually spent in prison appears to be increasing.3 The punitive nature of the punishment part is particularly well illustrated by the tariff’s history in England and Wales.4 The power to set the tariff initially constituted an encroachment on the judicial function by the Home Secretary,5 raising justified fears that tariffs were being set for political purposes.6 Tariffs have not become any less punitive but they must now be determined by the judiciary.7

KW - sentencing

KW - murder

KW - prisoners

KW - punishment

U2 - 10.3366/E136498091000171X

DO - 10.3366/E136498091000171X

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 473

EP - 477

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

SN - 1364-9809

IS - 3

ER -